F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 September 2015, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, A, country S represented by Mr xxxxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country U as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) - controversie di lavoro – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 September 2015, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, A, country S represented by Mr xxxxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country U as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 February 2011, the player from S, A (hereinafter: Claimant or player) and the club from U, B (hereinafter: Respondent or club) concluded an employment contract, valid as from 1 February 2011 until 31 December 2015 (hereinafter: contract). 2. On 23 July 2014, the player and the club agreed to terminate the contract and concluded an agreement named ‘Agreement on termination of the contract from the 1st of February 2011 of the professional football player A (hereinafter: termination agreement). According to this termination agreement, the player was entitled to receive the following amounts: USD 20,000 on 31 July 2014, USD 20,000 on 10 September 2014 and USD 20,000 on 10 October 2014. 3. The player states that the club only paid him the first instalment of USD 20,000 and therefore failed to pay him the remaining amount of USD 40,000. 4. On 30 December 2014, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club, claiming payment of the total amount of USD 40,000 as well as 5% interest as from 11 October 2014. Further, the player asks that the club be condemned to pay the costs of the procedure and legal fees. 5. In its reply to the claim of the player, the club stated that due to the ‘events occurring in xxxxxx’, the government of xxxxxx restricted payments and the transfer of money ‘out of the borders of xxxxx’. According to the club, the amount of USD 40,000 the player requests for is a payment related to ‘early cancellation of the contract’, which payment is considered to be restricted under U law, because “monetary obligations” in U must be performed in the national currency of xxxxx, (xxx). The club concludes that the payment as agreed between the player and the club in the termination agreement cannot be carried out. 6. The club further proposes, as a possible solution, that it will pay the player – in xxx and at the official exchange rate on the payment date - four instalments equalling USD 10,000 each, as follows: - USD 10,000 (in xxx) on 30 April 2015; - USD 10,000 (in xxx) on 31 May 2015; - USD 10,000 (in xxx) on 30 June 2015; - USD 10,000 (in xxx) on 31 July 2015. 7. The player informed FIFA that he received the proposal, however that he did not reach an amicable settlement of the dispute with the club, arguing that the club’s proposal is unacceptable for him. 8. Despite being invited to do so, the club did not provide FIFA with a further response. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 30 December 2014. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2014; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015) he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from S and a club from U. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 30 December 2014, the 2014 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. First of all, the DRC judge acknowledged that, following the conclusion of an employment contract valid as from 1 February 2011 until 31 December 2015, on 23 July 2014, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded a termination agreement, by means of which it was agreed that the Respondent would pay the Claimant the amount of USD 60,000 in three instalments, as follows: a) USD 20,000 on 31 July 2014; b) USD 20,000 on 10 September 2014; c) USD 20,000 on 10 October 2014. 6. The DRC judge further observed that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, seeking payment of the amount of USD 40,000, as well as 5% interest as from 11 October 2014, indicating that the Respondent had not fulfilled its obligations as established in the termination agreement, since it had only paid the Claimant the first instalment, which was due on 31 July 2014. 7. Subsequently, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent, in its defence, explained that it had to review the termination agreement, due to the “events occurring in the xxxxx” and that - because U law prescribes that “monetary obligations” in U must be performed in xxx - it was not possible to pay the Claimant the second and third instalment of USD 20,000 each. 8. Further, the DRC judge observed that the Respondent asked the Claimant to sign a new agreement, under which document the Respondent would pay the Claimant four instalments, equalling to USD 10,000 each, in xxx. In addition, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant did not sign the proposed agreement. 9. First and foremost, the DRC judge wished to point out that as per the termination agreement, the Claimant and the Respondent explicitly and contractually agreed upon the payment of the total amount of USD 60,000 in three instalments of USD 20,000 each. Also, the DRC judge took into account that the Claimant explicitly rejected the proposal from the Respondent to pay the allegedly outstanding instalments in four equal instalments in xxx. 10. In addition, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent did not contest that the second and third instalment of USD 20,000 had remained unpaid – the Respondent even acknowledged that these instalments were outstanding - although the parties explicitly and contractually agreed upon the payment of the total amount of USD 60,000 in three instalments of USD 20,000. 11. As to the arguments presented by the Respondent, the DRC judge observed that the Respondent had not provided any documentary evidence in support of its statement that payments in USD are restricted under U law. Therefore, according to the DRC judge, any such statement cannot be taken into account and cannot be upheld against the Claimant in this respect. Furthermore, the DRC judge was eager to reiterate that as per the termination agreement, the parties had agreed upon payment of the three instalments of USD 20,000 each in USD, and not in xxx. As a result thereof, the DRC judge decided that the arguments of the Respondent could not be considered as a legitimate basis to not pay the amount of USD 40,000 in time. 12. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent has not provided any valid reasons for not paying the amount of USD 40,000 as requested by the Claimant in USD, as agreed upon between the parties in the termination agreement. 13. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the termination agreement concluded with the Claimant and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the Claimant the total amount of USD 40,000. 14. In continuation and with regard to the Claimant's request for interest, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 40,000 as from 11 October 2014 until the date of effective payment. 15. The DRC judge further decided that the Claimant's claim for legal fees is rejected, in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the respective longstanding jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. 16. The DRC judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant. ***** III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, B, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 40,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 11 October 2014 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the DRC judge of every payment received. Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the DRC judge: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives